Hold Congress Accountable

About FreedomConnector

Find activists, groups, and events right in your own neighborhood. Join FreedomConnector to get involved and learn more about key issues threatening our economic freedom. Whether you’re looking for like-minded people, trying to boost your existing group’s impact, or simply trying to stay up on current events, FreedomConnector is the place to start. See what’s happening in your state today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

ObamaCare Upheld as a Tax, But It’s Not the End of the World

“Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows. It’s a very mean and nasty place, and I don’t care how tough you are… But it ain’t about how hard you hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward; how much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done!” – Rocky, from Rocky Balboa (2006)

This morning, the United States Supreme Court released its ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. In a 5-4 decision, the Court found that the individual mandate is constitutional, but only as a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor in this majority opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the entirety of the law was unconstitutional. To put it bluntly, this is a very complicated ruling that few expected in its given form.

Let me give a bit of background on the case. In late March, the Court heard oral arguments regarding two cases challenging President Obama’s health care reform law: Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. There were four major parts to the overall case:

1.) Does the Anti-Injunction Act preclude the plaintiff’s challenge to the individual mandate?

2.) Is the individual mandate constitutional under the commerce clause?

3.) Is the individual mandate severable from the rest of the law, or must the whole law be struck down if the mandate is unconstitutional?

4.) Does the law violate the basic tenets of federalism by coercing the states into accepting burdensome new Medicaid regulations and requirements, since the law threatens to end all federal funding for Medicaid if they refuse to comply?

The Court ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. They ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but NOT under the taxing and spending clause. Since the mandate was upheld under the taxing and spending clause, the issue of severability did not come into play. On the issue of Medicaid, they ruled that the law can offer increased funds to the states in exchange for the new rules and regulations, but it cannot coerce the states into taking the deal by threatening to withhold funds. This is a minor victory for conservatives, although it will likely be overlooked in light of the mandate being upheld.

Here’s my read: Few expected the Court to uphold the mandate as a tax. The fact that a majority ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause is important, because it finally places a limit on that clause. In terms of precedent, the Court set a very good one with regards to that. Since the Obama administration actively argued before the Court that the mandate was not a tax, this decision comes out of left field. Here’s the relevant portion of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States… - Article 1, Section 8

If the mandate had been labeled a tax or argued to be a tax by the Obama administration, this ruling would have been significantly less surprising. As things stand, I disagree with the Court’s majority opinion regarding the general welfare clause, which is the only significant limitation on Congress’s power of taxation beyond common sense, but I’m thankful that they upheld the mandate under that clause instead of the commerce clause. Is it a small victory? Obviously. But it’s an important one, and I have little doubt that the precedent set by it will have important ramifications in future decisions.

Conservatives haven’t been able to trust the Court since the mid-1930s. This is a sad, depressing day that affirms the basic truth that we can only rely on ourselves, and our duly elected representatives. A Supreme Court decision striking down the mandate would have been a convenient shortcut, but we still have options. We must stay on offense. We must push for full repeal of ObamaCare.

This isn’t a “long-shot” by any means. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has consistently pushed for full repeal, and the House of Representatives has voted for full repeal several times. They’ll do so again this July. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has pledged that if November brings a Republican majority in the Senate, the first vote held will be for full repeal. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has sworn that he will issue ObamaCare waivers to all fifty states in the event that he’s elected President, and that he will sign a full repeal law.

So, we have a good shot. No matter what, it’s very likely that the House of Representatives will stay in conservative hands after November. If Romney wins the election, he’ll at least provide the waivers. If conservatives take back the Senate as well, we’ll get full repeal through both chambers of Congress. However, if President Obama wins a second term as President, he’ll veto full repeal. This means that a Romney victory in November is critical for full repeal.

We have to stay on offense. We have to move forward. We have to elect enough conservatives to get full repeal. And once ObamaCare is finally repealed, we have to push for conservative health care reform.

This isn’t the end. The Supreme Court does not have the final say on the Constitution. The people do. So let’s get this done.

The November election will be one of the most important event in a lot of our lives, Please, take action and help to control your destiny. Visit www.oustobamacoalition.com to find out how you can help make sure we are not stuck with Obama for another 4 years. He will end America as we know it.

The Supreme Court has taken an active role in redefining, rather than simply interpreting, our country’s laws. Two clear examples of this can be seen in the two ObamaCare opinions written by Chief Justice Roberts, NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell. Whether it is calling a penalty a tax, or saying an exchange established by Kathleen Sebelius was established by the states, the Supreme Court is playing an active role in changing legislation.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the EPA was unreasonable when it did not consider costs when it decided to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, held that the EPA must consider costs, including compliance costs, when deciding whether a regulation is appropriate and necessary.

The newly handed-down Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act has garnered a great deal of debate. The 6-3 vote in favor of the administration does nothing to fix the unworkable flaws that remain and continue to largely define Obamacare. No matter the lens used to view the ACA, the prognosis is bad.

Some words apparently have no meaning, even when written in plain English, according to a majority of Supreme Court justices. Today the Court reached its long awaited decision in King v. Burwell. The Court ruled 6-3 for Burwell, holding that the federal subsidies can continue to flow to states that have not established an exchange.

Ten years ago today, the United States Supreme Court fundamentally changed the meaning and purpose of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which allows for the use of eminent domain for “public use,” such as a road. But in a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to take property from a private citizen for purposes other than a public use.

The King v. Burwell lawsuit has generated a lot of interest, and for good reason. It’s an important case that has broad implications for the future of ObamaCare. But the issue at hand is a complex one, and this has led - both willfully and accidentally - to a lot of bad or misleading reporting. Let’s clear things up, shall we? Here are the top five misconceptions about King v. Burwell.

Before policymakers debate over whether or not government should intervene in private industry (the answer is no!), they should start asking themselves whether or not government is competent enough to even intervene correctly.

With the King v. Burwell decision expected to drop in only a couple of weeks, many in the media are whipping themselves into a frenzy over the consequences of vanishing subsidies. Depending on who you believe, between 6 and 7 million people could be affected if the Supreme Court rules that words mean what they mean, and Republicans have proposed several plans to bridge these people gently away from ObamaCare.

The time is near: later this month the Supreme Court will issue its ruling on King v. Burwell. The case centers around the question of what the phrase “established by the state” means, and how it affects eligibility for subsidies.

Many Americans are eagerly (and nervously) awaiting the King v. Burwell decision, which is expected to come at the end of the month. The court case will determine whether ObamaCare, which looks to be falling apart independently of legal intervention, is illegally providing subsidies to those enrolled in the exchange.